Bibliographic record
Abstract
Après la prise de poste, de nombreux enseignants de la formation professionnelle n’ont pas la possibilité de se tenir informés des évolutions du domaine professionnel pour lequel ils préparent les élèves. Ils peuvent en revanche bénéficier de séances de formation continue sur des thèmes techniques. Cet article discute la possibilité de faire de la formation continue de ces enseignants un lieu de rencontre indirecte avec le monde professionnel qui les concerne. Réunies dans certaines séances de formation continue, deux conditions semblent permettre aux enseignants d’actualiser et d’enrichir leurs représentations du monde du travail : la mixité des deux publics, enseignant et professionnel, ainsi que la mise à disposition pendant la formation d’un temps permettant à chaque participant d’évoquer son travail et ses préoccupations professionnelles. Les données empiriques mobilisées sont issues d’une séquence couramment observée en début des séances de formation continue, le tour de table.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".